Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 440 / Act 174 of 1962
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3301 (2026)

Instrument; person entitled to enforce.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.3301 Instrument; person entitled to enforce.

Sec. 3301.

    "Person entitled to enforce" an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to section 3309 or 3418(4). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 130, Eff. Sept. 30, 1993

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: State Treasurer v. Abbott, 660 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Treasurer v. Abbott, 660 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 440.3301(ii). This transfer of authority constitutes an "assignment" under the United States Department of Treasury's definition of the term.”
Michigan Ins. Repair Co. v. Mfrs. Nat'l Bank, 487 N.W.2d 517 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “MCL 440.3301; MSA 19.3301. A holder is a person in possession of an instrument issued or indorsed to him or to bearer or in blank.”
Behrens v. Apessos, 197 N.W.2d 886 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 4× “1201(20), with a right to enforce the note in their own names, MCLA 440.3301; MSA 19.3301. As the signatures on the note are not in dispute, plaintiffs are entitled to recover by merely producing the note.”
Gant v. Nelnet (W.D. Mich. 2025). · cites it 3× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3301 . Plaintiff is not the holder of the note he gave for his student loan, nor does he have rights to enforce it.”
Nat'l City Bank v. Syatt Realty Grp., Inc., 497 F. App'x 465 (6th Cir. 2012). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3301 . The MUCC provides that “[i]f the validity of signatures is admitted .”
Bza 301 Holdings LLC v. Louis Stevens (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× ““Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to [MCL…”
West-Bowlson v. Sun West Mortg. Co., Inc (E.D. Mich. 2025). “Laws § 440.3301 . Deutsche Bank is not a “holder,” as the loan is payable to Sun West, not Deutsche Bank or the bearer of the note.”
Francis Katulski v. Cpca Trust I (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “UCC VIOLATION The Katulskis contend that CPCA never established its possession of either the promissory note or any interest in their mortgage and that CPCA lacked the authority to enforce the note in the foreclosure proceeding because it never possessed the note as contemplated…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3301(ii) — 1 case
State Treasurer v. Abbott, 660 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 2003). “§ 440.3301(ii). This transfer of authority constitutes an "assignment" under the United States Department of Treasury's definition of the term.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.